Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gammon Rizzani(Jv) vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited ... on 16 November, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit
CA 7141/12
1
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No.7141/2012
GAMMON RIZZANI(JV) Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DELHI METRO RAIL CORP.LTD. Respondent(s)
(With interim relief and office report)
WITH C.A. No.7142-7144/2012
(With office report)
C.A. No. 7145/2012
(With interim relief and office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.25132/2013
(With interim relief and office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.18159/2014
(With interim relief and office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.36693/2013
(With interim relief and office report)
S.L.P.(C) Nos.6475-6476/2015
(With interim relief and office report)
Date: 16/11/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
For Appellant(s) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Adv.
Ms. Gunjan S. Jain, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Soni, Adv.
for M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates
CA 7141/12 Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Sanjeev Anad, Adv.
Mr. Yakesh Anand, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2015.11.19
16:24:34 IST
Reason: Mr. K.B. Singh, Adv.
Mr. R. Sathish, AOR
Mr. Sanjeev Anand, AOR
CA 7141/12
2
Mr. Amar Dave, Adv.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR
Ms. Swati V., Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. P.P. Khurana, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nitish Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR
Mr Tarun Johri, AOR
Mr. Sanjeev Anand, AOR
For Intervenor Mr. Biswajit Das, Adv.
Ms. Nayanika Pattnaik, Adv.
Mr. Subhasis Bhowmick, Adv.
Ms. Vanshika Chandra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
As some doubts had arisen, the matters have been listed for rehearing. The two doubts that had compelled us for listing the matter for rehearing are:
(i) whether the judgment rendered in Dewan Chand Builders and Contractors vs. Union of India and Others (2012) 1 SCC 101, as held in paragraph 18, that The Cess Act and the Cess Rules have become operative in the whole of NCT of Delhi with effect from January, 2002, would confer the benefit on the contractors in view of Clause 70.8 of the Contract or it shall not in view of the language employed in Clause 34.2 of the said instrument in respect of the National Highways Authority cases;
(ii) whether the conclusion arrived at in Dewan Chand Builders and Contractors case correctly states the law or it has to be CA 7141/12 3 differently understood for the purpose of applicability of the Act qua the workers and for the purpose of coming into force of the Act as regards deposit or realization.
Learned counsel for the parties pray for some time to argue the matter.
At this juncture, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal No.7141 of 2012, would submit that the three cases that relate to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, do not have anything like Clause 70.8 or Clause 34, but a different provision which has been engrafted in Clause 18A of the contract. Mr. Tarun Johri, learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has seriously controverted the same.
Be that as it may, we think it appropriate that we shall first hear the cases relating to National Highways Authority of India and, thereafter, proceed to hear the cases of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. However, as the controversy overlaps in certain, we shall take these matters on a single day.
Let the matters be listed at 2 p.m. on 17th February, 2016.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master